I use carbon suits as a form of scent control.
Any little bit helps.
I'm silly, I buy more hunting clothes every year, mostly scent blocker and scent lok.
I spray down and I'll probably buy one of those ozonics.
I hunt as high as I can.

I beleive reducing scent is important. I also understand their is no way to be totally scent free.

Please don't confuse Mythbusters with a scientific study. Afterall...it is just entertainment.

I use carbon suits as a form of scent control.
Any little bit helps.
I'm silly, I buy more hunting clothes every year, mostly scent blocker and scent lok.
I spray down and I'll probably buy one of those ozonics.
I hunt as high as I can.

I beleive reducing scent is important. I also understand their is no way to be totally scent free.

Please don't confuse Mythbusters with a scientific study. Afterall...it is just entertainment.

Well after the scienific study by Dr Shivik the conclusive results was the carbon had no effect.
Fox did an investigative report and the carbon didn't work.
S Maxwell posted on you tube his test and the carbon didn't work again.
Myth Busters just again proved that carbon doesn't work.
How much evidence do you need ?
Why not do your own test ?

Why is it that the guys that don't believe in carbon clothes always feel the need to prove it doesn't work? Believe what you want fellas, I will continue to ignore the wind when I hunt because my scent control REGIMENT works and I have the deer mounts to prove it.
I hope you all had a successful season...

And just WHY is it that those of you that do won't answer a few basic honest questions about your use of it in regards to what's be proven about it?

Any of you can ask me anything you like about my methods, and you will get an answer that's to the best of my ability. You might not care for my answers, and that's fine. But we WILL discuss it if you like. I don't avoid the questions.

And we don't have to prove a thing about carbon clothing. The court and science has already done that. What were discussing here are those very realities.

During the lawsuit, the court determined that carbon suits from both Scent-Lok and Scent-Blocker were effective at eliminating scent and could be reactivated at dryer temperatures. Nothing did so much to prove the case for the benefits of carbon clothing than that court case did.

The only issues were related to Scent-Lok using terminology like 100% elimination. They have since changed their marketing to "virtually" eliminates.

Here are some threads related to independent testing by Robinson (ScentBlocker) that was done during the trial.

Most important is this finding by the court (see second link):

II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use its phrase odor eliminating technology but only in conjunction with other words or phrases that expressly make clear that the clothing in question can only reduce the release of human odor. Robinson may not use the phrases elimination or odor eliminating or scent eliminating alone or in conjunction with words or graphics that say or depict scent-free, odor free, 100%, all or every trace or every bit of odor as removed by the clothing.

Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use the word regenerate or reactivate as a description of the process of removal of some trapped odor from the clothing, as long as they do not include additional words or graphics that say or depict regeneration or reactivation as a process that will restore the clothing to pristine or like new condition.

Virtually everything you have heard about carbon suits not working has come from sports writers who made stuff up based on misinterpreting scientific literature or putting expectations on scent reduction that they would never consider putting on visibility reduction. I pointed out this nonsense 4 years ago in an article located here:

The fact that a bloodhound can still find you while wearing an activated carbon suit is no more meaningful than a blood hound still being able to see you while wearing camouflage. The notion or idea of complete scent elimination was always just silly marketing hyperbole. It's like saying camouflage makes you completely invisible. Neither statement makes rational sense. Just because camou does not make you invisible, are you not going to use it? Same goes for activated carbon clothing. It doesn't make you unsmellable, it makes you harder to smell.

OK, so then just HOW MUCH does the dryer "regenerate" it? 80%? 60%? 20%? Fact is, ANYTHING less than 100% means that after so many dryings that it can not be regenerated at all. Even if it regenerates at 90% that would mean that after 10 dryings that it's done. This would also explain why a lot of carbon clothing users state that It worked great at first, but then not so well after a year or so."

So what is it? Are we supposed to take Scent-Loc/Blocks word for it? They don't have much "word" left.

bmorris, If you want a copy of this test, I would contact Virginia Tech directly and ask for their study. If I had a copy handy, I would happily email you one. I do know right after it was finished, Natural Predator, the company that makes Tru Carbon was anxious to mention it on their website. It was not funded by any outside source, that I'm sure of.

Mark;

While I agree with you that activated carbon works very effectively, it is unfortunate that the Vriginia Tech report has not been fully disclosed. When you review the data on the Natural Predator site, the results are presented in a form that, well, let's just say would never hold up under peer-review for publication.

They "tested" their product with a variety of scents against 6 other products and concluded that their product was 99.7% "effective" (whatever that means) while the 6 other products, when lumped together were %92.98 "effective."

Interesting. Lets suppose 5 of those products are actually better than the tested product, and one is much worse:

If 5 of the products tested at 99.8% (better than the product they were marketing) and 1 of the other products tested at 58.5% effective, you get the same result as they report--92.9% effective for the averaged competing group. By lumping them together, they make it appear as if the other products all tested way below theirs, which probably was not the case. Several of the products they were comparing to are great products, and may have tested out comparably. That does not mean they are better than the target product, or can achieve what the target product can. Just that they are able to test as well for the chosen compounds. It is unsound science to average a group of individual results and compare it to a single result. Probably a couple of the other manufacturers could take the same data, average the activated carbon in with the poorer products, and "prove" that their product scores higher.

Here's an easier example. Suppose you are 40 years old. You compare your age to 6 other people and find that their average age is 36. Does that mean you are older than the others in the group?

Let's suppose they are 50, 30, 35, 45, 26, and 30. Well, two of them are actually older than you. It is completely invalid to draw conclusions about individuals in a group when you average them.

Unfortunately (for me as well) the study is meaningless as presented. I sell a competing activated carbon product. It pains me to see studies like this in the public domain, because they lead inexorably to the same kinds of problems faced by the clothing manufacturers. It is bad for the business and bad for both my company and theirs. because our customers are for the most part elite bow hunters, scent control fanatics, and are smart enough to figure out what will work for them. I don't think I have a single customer who does not also use activated carbon clothing. I am never without two layers. These kind of guys will test things on their own and be very skeptical of any data they are presented with.

Many of the studies you see associated with products are no different than this. Just graphs and charts aimed at making it look scientific. Most companies selling non-food or medical products simply do not have the research budget to do rigorous studies. They tend to just throw up something and call it scientific.

I will tell you a study that is meaningful. If you take some coon urine, which puts out thousands of times the odor molecules per unit time than a human does, and put it on a piece of filter paper, and put activated carbon onto the filter paper, most people can not smell any of the coon urine. That's a real world test. Now, you may say that's not a good test because a deer has much better scent detection than a human, well, that's true, but this little test overdoes the quantity of odor molecules, which more than makes up for the discrepancy in odor detection. A bad "scientific" test is not as meaningful as a powerful anecdotal test to a consumer. They can smell that it works. As Bob Dylan says, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

OK, so then just HOW MUCH does the dryer "regenerate" it? 80%? 60%? 20%? Fact is, ANYTHING less than 100% means that after so many dryings that it can not be regenerated at all. Even if it regenerates at 90% that would mean that after 10 dryings that it's done. This would also explain why a lot of carbon clothing users state that It worked great at first, but then not so well after a year or so."

So what is it? Are we supposed to take Scent-Loc/Blocks word for it? They don't have much "word" left.

Well, its really no different than your boots getting cracks in the rubber over time, your camouflage fading with multiple washes, holes forming in your socks. Lots of stuff has a finite life span. The problem with we humans, is we can see the hole in our socks, but we don't have a very good nose so we don't know exactly when the capability of an activated carbon garment is "fading" or "getting holes." You basically have to go with the manufacturers recommendation. How long it lasts depends largely on how closely you follow the manufacturer's recommendations. If you eat breakfast in it, sit around a fire, gas your vehicle, wear it in the house, field dress a deer while wearing it, it won't last all that long. However, if you keep it sealed in a container at all times, only touch it after you have showered with gloved hands, take it off immediately after the hunt is finished, it will last for years. In that respect it is no different than a pair of rubber boots. If you let them sit outside in direct sunlight for a year, you will ruin them. I f you store them properly in a closed area, they may last you 10 years.

Nonetheless, without question, the manufacturers convinced the court that their clothing was effective and could be regenerated.

And just WHY is it that those of you that do won't answer a few basic honest questions about your use of it in regards to what's be proven about it?

Any of you can ask me anything you like about my methods, and you will get an answer that's to the best of my ability. You might not care for my answers, and that's fine. But we WILL discuss it if you like. I don't avoid the questions.

And we don't have to prove a thing about carbon clothing. The court and science has already done that. What were discussing here are those very realities.

Well, its really no different than your boots getting cracks in the rubber over time, your camouflage fading with multiple washes, holes forming in your socks. Lots of stuff has a finite life span. The problem with we humans, is we can see the hole in our socks, but we don't have a very good nose so we don't know exactly when the capability of an activated carbon garment is "fading" or "getting holes." You basically have to go with the manufacturers recommendation. How long it lasts depends largely on how closely you follow the manufacturer's recommendations. If you eat breakfast in it, sit around a fire, gas your vehicle, wear it in the house, field dress a deer while wearing it, it won't last all that long. However, if you keep it sealed in a container at all times, only touch it after you have showered with gloved hands, take it off immediately after the hunt is finished, it will last for years. In that respect it is no different than a pair of rubber boots. If you let them sit outside in direct sunlight for a year, you will ruin them. I f you store them properly in a closed area, they may last you 10 years.

Nonetheless, without question, the manufacturers convinced the court that their clothing was effective and could be regenerated.

Well if you did that with a plain set of camo clothes wouldn't you get the same results???? If you washed them and yourself in scent reducing soap and did everything else you said you would get the same results. So why spend 10 times the money on the carbon stuff??